Essay on Annexation of the Philippines

From the way the two secondary sources have been analyzed, it is evident that the two authors (though they have the same topic) have addressed the topic differently. The first article by Nell Irvin painter has infected more on the issues of foreign policies. To Painter, annexation emerged due to the need for the Americans to expand their industrial and agricultural supplies. Hoganson’s article, on the other, had ground its arguments on the political and cultural association between the two countries (America and the Philippines). Here Hoganson narrates the poor authoritarian (childlike) rule that existed (all in the quest for imperialism). Nonetheless, the two sources have a common perspective that gravitates around economic issues.

The speech by William McKinley is more inclined on both countries’ politics and the imperialistic nature of the US administration. The speech, which emphasizes that “the future government of the Philippines rests with the congress,” is believed to support Haganson ideology. However, Henry Cabot Lodge’s speech (considered as the second speech) is mostly embedded in economic value. The speech quotes “total value of imports and experts … [is] 29000000” the fact that Lodge’s speech has more economic value to Americans can political and cultural issues indicates that the idea is to support Painters’ foreign policies.

The third speech by Albert Beveridge also supports the politician and cultural ideology, just like William McKinley. Albert quotes that the Philippines government is not able to govern itself adequately, therefore supporting the annexation of the Philippines based on Haganson’s idea of imperialism. The fourth speech by Theodore Roosevelt has a different style compared to the other speech. While it’s easy to classify the other speech, this one lacks the ruthless foreign policy of the imperialistic nature. The speech believes in helping the Philippines to better manage their country. Nonetheless, the speech can be slightly categorized under Hoganson.

Both sources offer some compelling arguments in support of their positions, but relying on speeches like that may have its limitations. For example, while presenting imperialistic arguments to annex the Philippines, many of these statements are motivated by emotional intensity. There is a good chance that two separate people would depart with identical views and thoughts. When examining both sources, it seemed that the speeches than the first speech more strongly supported the second speech. Painters’ reasoning was more rational, in my opinion, but Hoganson’s source is more accurate.

Hoganson and Painter identified two distinct issues that would be resolved as a result of the annexation of the Philippines. In addition to a strong foreign policy link with Asia, Painter predicted that overseas markets would develop and sustain the weight of the United States’ economy expanding at such a rapid pace (Painter). According to Hoganson’s perspective of view, he was attempting to control these barbaric and childish people. They were seen as incapable of self-government, and the imperialistic character of the United States compelled it to annex them (Hoganson). Even though Painter tended to be more economically oriented and Hoganson tended to be more culturally oriented, both sources may be accurate.

References

Beveridge, Albert. “Our Philippine Policy.” N.p., 9 Jan. 1900. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Hoganson, Kristin L. “The National Manhood Metaphor.” N.p., 1998. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Lodge, Henry Cabot. “The Retention of the Philippine Islands.” N.p., 7 Mar. 1900. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Painter, Nell Irvin. “The White Man’s Burden.” N.p., 1989. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Roosevelt, Theodore. “National Duties.” N.p., 2 Sept. 1901. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

William McKinley. “Annual Message of the President to Congress.” N.p., 5 Dec. 1899. Web. 11 Apr. 2017